• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

Would you support the decision of Texas to peacefully and democratically secede, if voted upon

  • Total voters
    133
DA60 said:
So what on Earth are those that are against Texas being able to secede proposing?

That if they try to leave that the military forces them to stay?

If that is so, that is lunacy, imo. To kill people to stop them from leaving your country - that is Soviet Union stuff.

Just check out the Ukraine (as the Ukrainian government is refusing to let the Donetsk region leave even though an overwhelming majority of them want to go) and look what a mess that is. Stopping Texas from leaving using force could make that war look like a picnic.
Click to expand...

to me its liked the deranged husband who says to his wife.."if you ever try to leave me, i will kill you"
 
ernst barkmann said:
how is secession illegal, since you can only quote the court, which is part of the federal government the southern states are leaving.

WHILE the founding fathers state the federal government has no power to stop a state from leaving the union....convention note may 31st 1787

WHILE it was taught before the civil war, that secession was up to a states to decide....."view of the constitution" 1829
Click to expand...

!.. Illegal act. Deal with it.

2. You misquote Madison. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15: Records of the Federal Convention
If you want to use him as a source, recall when NY and Virginia wanted to include the right to secession when debating Ratifying the US Constitution, Madison explicitly said *NO* - "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."

3. You have already been smacked down before with your Rawles Lost Causer nonsense.

To repeat:

He was a penny ante lawyer and DA with an opinion William Rawle.

Second, Rawles book was used *one Year at West Point. (1826).* Even that is under debate as to the extent it was used as a text book.

*And that year WP had a whopping 43 graduates.

And if you *are* going to quote the two bit lawyer and author on secession, (as if he was authoritative) -

add this one:

"The consequences of an absolute secession cannot be mistaken, and they would be serious and afflicting. . . . Separation would produce jealousies and discord, which in time would ripen into mutual hostilities, and while our country would be weakened by internal war, foreign enemies would be encouraged to invade with the flattering prospect of subduing in detail those whom, collectively, they would dread to encounter. P. 299.

In every aspect therefore which this great subject presents, we feel the deepest impression of a sacred obligation to preserve the union of our country; we feel our glory, our safety, and our happiness, involved in it; we unite the interests of those who coldly calculate advantages with those who glow with what is little short of filial affection; and we must resist the attempt of its own citizens to destroy it, with the same feelings that we should avert the dagger of the parricide. P. 301. "

Was Secession Taught at West Point? Century Magazine 1909
 
Paperview said:
!.. Illegal act. Deal with it.

2. You misquote Madison. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15: Records of the Federal Convention
If you want to use him as a source, recall when NY and Virginia wanted to include the right to secession when debating Ratifying the US Constitution, Madison explicitly said *NO* - "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."

3. You have already been smacked down before with your Rawles Lost Causer nonsense.

To repeat:

He was a penny ante lawyer and DA with an opinion William Rawle.

Second, Rawles book was used *one Year at West Point. (1826).* Even that is under debate as to the extent it was used as a text book.

*And that year WP had a whopping 43 graduates.

And if you *are* going to quote the two bit lawyer and author on secession, (as if he was authoritative) -

add this one:

"The consequences of an absolute secession cannot be mistaken, and they would be serious and afflicting. . . . Separation would produce jealousies and discord, which in time would ripen into mutual hostilities, and while our country would be weakened by internal war, foreign enemies would be encouraged to invade with the flattering prospect of subduing in detail those whom, collectively, they would dread to encounter. P. 299.

In every aspect therefore which this great subject presents, we feel the deepest impression of a sacred obligation to preserve the union of our country; we feel our glory, our safety, and our happiness, involved in it; we unite the interests of those who coldly calculate advantages with those who glow with what is little short of filial affection; and we must resist the attempt of its own citizens to destroy it, with the same feelings that we should avert the dagger of the parricide. P. 301. "

Was Secession Taught at West Point? Century Magazine 1909
Click to expand...
:2razz:


sorry but you cannot get around the founders, and what was taught of the constitution before the civl war.......s
 
jonny5 said:
Yes, its also wrong. The right to liberty superceeds contracts or kingdoms. Thats the whole point of the Declaration. Individuals have an unalienable right to be free.

Now, if you dont beleive that, then ok. Agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

We have a system set up to change our Government and laws. We are a Republic.

It's worked pretty damn good for lo these many years.

If the people don't like their government, they have the power to alter or abolish it peaceably. The colonies did not have that power.

Now, if you don't believe that, then ok. Have your anarchy
 
ernst barkmann said:
to me its liked the deranged husband who says to his wife.."if you ever try to leave me, i will kill you"
Click to expand...

More akin to a cheating husband who decides he wants a divorce and declares:
too bad, I'm keeping the house.

That said: both are poor analogies. The system we set up to govern is not like a husband and wife squabble.
 
time for you to take a big smack!

Document 5

Records of the Federal Convention

[1:54; Madison, 31 May]

The last clause of Resolution 6. authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration.

Mr. Madison, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually.--, A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con.

[1:61; McHenry, 31 May]

And to call forth the force of the union against any member of the union failing to fulfil its duty under the articles thereof.

postponed.<--------------


Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15: Records of the Federal Convention

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avalon Project - Madison Debates - May 31



The other clauses giving powers necessary to preserve harmony among the States to negative all State laws contravening in the opinion of the Nat. Leg. the articles of union, down to the last clause, (the words "or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union," being added after the words "contravening &c. the articles of the Union," on motion of Dr. FRANKLIN) were agreed to witht. debate or dissent. The last clause of Resolution 6. [FN11] authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration.

Mr. MADISON, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. -A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse [FN12] unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con.

The Committee then rose & the House

Adjourned<--------------


:2razz: your post confirmed what i have said all along!:lamo
 
Last edited:
Paperview said:
More akin to a cheating husband who decides he wants a divorce and declares:
too bad, I'm keeping the house.

That said: both are poor analogies. The system we set up to govern is not like a husband and wife squabble.
Click to expand...


oh, its exactly like that, some people when secession is mentioned they go crazy, and say that if any state would seek to leave, they will use force to stop it.
 
Paperview said:
We have a system set up to change our Government and laws. We are a Republic.

It's worked pretty damn good for lo these many years.

If the people don't like their government, they have the power to alter or abolish it peaceably. The colonies did not have that power.

Now, if you don't believe that, then ok. Have your anarchy
Click to expand...

So what exactly do you propose to do if Texas decides to leave - start a war to force them to stay?
 
ernst barkmann said:
<garbage snipped>
Click to expand...

That had nothing to do with secession.

The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot’s Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:

"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."

Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law Schoo
 
ernst barkmann said:
oh, its exactly like that, some people when secession is mentioned they go crazy, and say that if any state would seek to leave, they will use force to stop it.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be the first time it happened
 
DA60 said:
So what exactly do you propose to do if Texas decides to leave - start a war to force them to stay?
Click to expand...

Federal property belonging to the whole of the US, and paid by all of US taxpayers is not something the state gets to steal.

There would necessarily be war if they decided to take over this property.

It didn't work out well last time.
 
Paperview said:
That had nothing to do with secession.

The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot’s Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:

"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."

Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law Schoo
Click to expand...

lol...you failed in your smack down, now you try something else?

the convention was clear, the federal government was not GRANTED the power to preserve the harmony of the UNION.

YOUR VOTE, WAS TAKEN BY THE NY RATIFYING CONVENTION...NOT THE FOUNDERS.
 
Paperview said:
Federal property belonging to the whole of the US, and paid by all of US taxpayers is not something the state gets to steal.

There would necessarily be war if they decided to take over this property.

It didn't work out well last time.
Click to expand...

or they could purchase it....

there are more options than "steal" or "take over".... hell, it might even be leased, depending on the nature and use of the land in question.

it doesn't have to come to war.... to wage a war would be a choice, not a necessity.
 
DA60 said:
So what exactly do you propose to do if Texas decides to leave - start a war to force them to stay?
Click to expand...

that exactly what the opposers are saying... all of them.

I think they're a bit cheerful about it too... like they enjoy the thought of it happening.
 
Paperview said:
Federal property belonging to the whole of the US, and paid by all of US taxpayers is not something the state gets to steal.

There would necessarily be war if they decided to take over this property.

It didn't work out well last time.
Click to expand...

Makes me think the feds should pay us Texans rent. After all what country is that property protecting? Germany? Saudi Arabia? England?
 
Paperview said:
Federal property belonging to the whole of the US, and paid by all of US taxpayers is not something the state gets to steal.

There would necessarily be war if they decided to take over this property.

It didn't work out well last time.
Click to expand...

Not all of Texas is federal land...what about the land that is privately/state owned?
 
I'll one up this: texas should be removed from the union
 
ernst barkmann said:
lol...you failed in your smack down, now you try something else?

the convention was clear, the federal government was not GRANTED the power to preserve the harmony of the UNION.

YOUR VOTE, WAS TAKEN BY THE NY RATIFYING CONVENTION...NOT THE FOUNDERS.
Click to expand...

Coocoo for cocoa puffs.

Ignore Madison as you must.

"In toto and forever."
 
Thrilla said:
or they could purchase it....

there are more options than "steal" or "take over".... hell, it might even be leased, depending on the nature and use of the land in question.

it doesn't have to come to war.... to wage a war would be a choice, not a necessity.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS ruled there is a provision for states to secede. By the consent of the states.

Get that --> Good to go.
+
 
winston53660 said:
Makes me think the feds should pay us Texans rent. After all what country is that property protecting? Germany? Saudi Arabia? England?
Click to expand...

Last I heard, Texas received 90 cents or less for every dollar its residents and businesses sent to Washington.

They are takers, not givers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom